update on Manning's torture

**JMA** · 04-22-2011

Originally Posted by jcustis

You have proven, once again, that outside of reading the daily news, a blog or two, and a few journal articles, you have no idea what you are talking about.

having just returned from Afghanistan, I can categorically educate you that the ROE is not restrictive. As a matter of fact, ROE are typically structured to be PERMISSIVE, so the notion that they are restrictive speaks the fact that you have probably bought into the hype allowed to creep into the mainstream media.

Oh, and to make it a bit more clear, the ROEs are not in place to win hearts and minds. They are effected to protect innocent life, allow our forces to engage forces declared hostile and/or permit the inherent right to self-defense, and protect our personnel by facilitating conduct permissible under the variety of laws and conventions we are signatories to.

You also don't have the slightest idea how the Tactical Directive works, so stop spouting off about things you know nothing about. If there is anything folks might have expressed fear or angst over, it was that, and not the ROEs. But there is nothing wrong with the Tactical Directive, IMO.

Will the real uneducated please sit down.

ETA: The media is flipping the world over regarding Manning. His jailers could certainly care less.

Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:

Zinni: Afghanistan rules of engagement too restrictive

“There is a strong sense in on the ground by the company commanders and platoon commanders that the rules of engagement are too restrictive,”…

“They result in more casualties. They don’t allow for the kind of immediate engagement. The enemy understands these rules of engagement and manipulates them.”

“Some of the rules of engagement that were designed to be extra-protective of civilians, which you can understand and certainly sympathise with, are actually not,”…

You said the following: “having just returned from Afghanistan”. Now your unit returned from Afghanistan at the end of November 2010 which places your frame of reference in the same timeline as General Zinni’s comments.

Also five months on is no longer “just”. Suggest you drop the use of that word.

I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

**82redleg** · 04-22-2011

Originally Posted by JMA

Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:...
I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

Who do you think is more able to speak for the "platoon and company commanders"- the MAJ who is maybe one of them, or a tour or two removed from them, who has deployed with them and fought the fight with them for 7+ months, or a politician with a political axe to grind (yeah, he was a 4* GO, but he retired 9 years ago, and since then has not only been a special envoy, but the president/CEO of several companies) who flew in to visit for a few days. Heck, he probably never read the ROE, just got briefed on it, and certainly never made decisions under its authority.

I'm 5 years out of A-stan, and almost 3 years out of Iraq, so I'm not current, but I'll take the word of the guys doing the deed over the word of a visitor. YMMV.

**jcustis** · 04-22-2011

Originally Posted by JMA

Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:

Zinni: Afghanistan rules of engagement too restrictive

You said the following: “having just returned from Afghanistan”. Now your unit returned from Afghanistan at the end of November 2010 which places your frame of reference in the same timeline as General Zinni’s comments.

Also five months on is no longer “just”. Suggest you drop the use of that word.

I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

I like the General. He spoke at a birthday ball for our division in Nov 2002, and despite having deep reservations about the pending conflict with Iraq, he wished us well. He has provided a considerable amount of steller service to his country and the Marine Corps.

You've keyed in on a sound byte from a terribly short article, and that is your right to do so, but it is only the General's stated opinion (actually more an observation than anything else) that offers sweeping generalizations. Even if he had said something more concrete and voluminous, he'd still be wrong. Go with what he 9and yes, he is a politician now) says if you must. I understand your frame of reference, and can see where you are being misled or why you misunderstand.

Now I know you are probably going to scour the intardweb to find additional articles with links and such to further argue your point, and that is your right as well. Have at it. Post those links at the outset though and allow folks to get a glimpse of what develops your position on matters we discuss here, not ex post facto.

As for my relevancy in the context of the ROE, considering the fact that the standing ROE in place has not changed for forever and a day, and that the Tactical Directive came out under Gen McChrystal and had two tweaks under Gen Petraeus during my tour, but no others have followed in the intervening time...yeah, I just got back. The ROE isn't even what folks are cited as having issues over. It is the Tactical Directive that tends to be highlighted as a matter of concern, which involves the application of force. Oh, but wait...wait...that's right...If I remember correctly (and it's just coming to me now

) the Tactical Directive that some folks enjoy getting up in arms over was issued by Gen McChrystal, a four star General, just like Zinni.

Casualty rates from IEDs account for just over half of the casualties incurred in Afghanistan, so there isn't a lot that can be done about altering the ROE to allow for pre-emptive engagement there anyway. I suppose folks wish we could be more proactive and less reactive in that regard And we have had a good number of good men lose their lives through turncoat actions by ANSF we thought were partners. I guess we should cease the partner mission because it puts troops at risk.

**91bravojoe** · 04-25-2011

The so called "rules" of engagement:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/21-5

Gun down four civilians on a highway, and then call them "insurgents".

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/wo...ghan.html?_r=1

"American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul."

We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties."

Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.

William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

**jcustis** · 04-25-2011

Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.

William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

It's your thread and definitely your opinion, as we can see here, but Manning is confined because he compromised classified networks and released information found on those networks. On the surface, it's still espionage. Views on the relevance of the material towards "the truth" are subjective.

Michael Walker was placed in pre-trial confinement for espionage committed in cahoots with his father.

I tend to think of Gen McChrystal as one well-intentioned commander. If the Phoenix Program is making a comeback, I'm curious as to where the details are that make you believe it is common knowledge.

**J Wolfsberger** · 04-25-2011

Originally Posted by 91bravojoe

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/21-5

Gun down four civilians on a highway, and then call them "insurgents".

The first sentence in the article is: 'NATO acknowledged Wednesday that four unarmed Afghans who were killed this week when a military convoy opened fire on their vehicle were all civilians, correcting an earlier claim that two of the dead were "known insurgents." '

Which contradicts your observation, unless your intended point was that NATO officials make mistakes, then correct them. Which would be something of a pointless point to make.

As for the rest, your hatred for the U.S. is tedious. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. In fact, you have lots of company in it. If your goal is to convince anyone here of ... something ... you're doing it wrong.

**Van** · 04-25-2011

Originally Posted by 91bravojoe

Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

Ummm...

No.

Manning is in pre-trial confinement for compromising classified information. This action is treason. Treason is perpetrated by traitors.

It is also worth noting that the Al-Qaeda manual found in Britain directs their members to claim abuse at the hands of captors at the first chance they get.

**Stan** · 04-25-2011

This is al-Qa'eda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured'

Terrorist Training Manual

Manning has disgraced the uniform and country we represent and hold dear.